Questions & Answers:  The following information is provided to ensure all proposers have the same information available to them.

Q1:  Can alternative means and methods be proposed to achieve the RFP goals?

A1:  Yes.  Alternative means and methods that do not degrade the health and life safety levels of the IRC are encouraged to achieve the objective of identifying potential ways to simplify the IRC and reduce the cost of construction.

Q2:  Can universities partner with other universities or industry practitioners (designers, builders, etc.) in their proposal?

A2:  Yes.  Please be sure to identify all partners or joint ventures proposed.

Q3:  Can universities or public companies partner with a university or public company, respectively, as part of their proposal?

A3:  Yes.  Academic and public partnerships are encouraged to bring the best solutions from applied research and industry knowledge to the effort.

Q4:  Is the effort meant to be data driven or more opinion based (focused groups, Delphi, nominal group technique, surveys)?

A4:  The primary focus should be data driven research-based solutions.  While opinion-based methods can be used to help guide or inform, the proposed solutions should be based on defendable facts (objective, quantifiable).  Much of the industry association information on the cost impacts of codes is based on survey type methods that are largely or wholly individual opinion-based or qualitative vs objective and quantifiable based.

Q5:  Should the focus be applied research vs theoretical research based?

A5:  The intent is to take the information / suggestions gleaned from this effort, and through a selection process, inject them into the 2030 code development process.  Applied research lends itself best to that timeline and the overall project intent.

Q6:  Is there a limit on the Facilities & Administrative (F&A) overhead rates that will be allowed?

A6:  Yes.  ICC will identify a F&A limit.  That is currently being reviewed and once determined will be posted / updated here.  We anticipate this will follow other industry examples of F&A caps, such as the Pankow Foundation, at not to exceed 15%.

Q7:  What is the process for awarding the contract?

A7:  Please refer to the RFP.  Once all proposals are received the ICC staff will review proposal for completeness.  Depending on the number proposals received the BIRC may do an initial down-select and then conduct interviews with the selected proposals.

Q8:  Is there a specific format for the proposals?

A8:  No.  You may use whatever format for the proposal you wish.  It is important that you have the required elements identified in the RFP included in your proposal.

Q9:  Are there any restrictions regarding font type, font size, page count, margins, or other formatting elements in our responses for the respective volumes?

A9:  No.  Proposals are encouraged to be succinct.

Q10:  Can ICC clarify that when pricing the Phase II deliverables, "Lump Sum Not To Exceed" indicates that we should provide a total price for each deliverable, including all labor costs associated with them, and that this constitutes our NTE?

A10:  Yes, total cost for each deliverable.  You may break it down into the sub-components if desired, but the cost proposed for each deliverable should reflect the total cost.

Q11:  Would the ICC be able to provide a pricing template for the Phase II deliverables? This would help ensure consistency in pricing among all vendors, similar to the approach taken for pricing the Phase III and IV deliverables.

A11:  This is the information that will be provided at this time.  During the interviews ICC will ask more specific questions to ensure equivalency of proposals relative to cost.  If there are meaningful disparities in the proposals during the interview process relating to scope which affect cost, ICC will provide clarifications to bidders allowing them to standardize the cost component and provide an updated ‘best and final offer.’

Q12:  Could ICC clarify what type of documentation is acceptable for requirement 5.4 "Documentation of Offeror’s soundness and financial capability to perform the work.

A12:  This could include, but is not limited to, summary examples of past work that demonstrates technical capabilities of the team to do the proposed work, company history demonstrating operational longevity, any public project performance ratings, and professional bonding insurance coverage (e.g. surety bonds, fidelity bonds, professional liability insurance, etc.)  If you are unsure if the information you intent to provide will meet the intent of this requirement, please feel free to reach out to ICC.

The project schedule will be updated here as it progresses.

A published report is not yet available.

FAQs are not available at this time.